Glofish!

[ddgbumblebee]

Also, bacteria are the most common organisms used in these experiments. You have pointed out some great uses ie. cleaning waste of all kinds, however, who is to say that the wrong sort of people will eventually create behaviour in them meant for wrong purposes. This is just as likely to be possible then any other application of them.

 

[Curiosity101]

Just a note to ddgbumblebee - Actually genetics isn't accidental in any way shape or form. You can specifically target a certain section of DNA that you know doesn't do anything (yes you CAN be sure it doesn't do anything). And you can pop your bit of DNA in there.

Jus as an example, in uni (in a class of 200 or so), we've transformed bacteria just in the labs whilst sat around chatting and rushing to try to get home in time.
We still cut the dna in exactly the right place, and inserted the DNA we wanted, closed it all up and then grew them on plates.

It's very easy to think changing DNA is 'dangerous', but often full genomes are known (which is true in the case of zebra danios I think). So it's not actually dangerous when the only insert genese in areas with known function/lack of function.

Back to the topic though... I have nothing against glofish. The insert of the flourescense doesn't cause any negative consequence to the fish, which is what I judge my opinion on.
I've have much more of a problem with line bred fish such as ballon shaped where they have much higher levels of swim bladder issues.

 

[Bignose]

who is to say that the wrong sort of people will eventually create behaviour in them meant for wrong purposes.

We probably should eliminate knives, too, then right? Because knives can be put to wrong purposes too, such as maiming or stabbing people.

It is the ultimate ethical calculus -- how to balance the potential or realized benefits versus the possible or realized dangers.

I think I can say without reservation that the benefits of having knives significantly outweighs the dangers and risks. But, again, you cannot just make a blanket statement decrying the possible dangers of some information or object and therefore rejecting it.

Everything has a danger in one way or another.

I mean, people drown every single year, we probably should take water away from them, too?

During the creation process things always go wrong at some stage- this is because we don't know EXACTLY what we are doing, otherwise our product would already have been created.

Sure, this is called research. Way back in the day, mankind didn't know how to make fire, either. Should they have stopped trying because fire can be dangerous, too?

I know that the above are pretty farcical examples, but I'll hope that it will get you thinking about the other side of the story. I don't know the answer to these kinds of questions, but I do think that automatically rejecting generically modified organisms on these blanket statements isn't right. I don't think that it is fair unless you carefully weigh the possible benefits to the possible risks.

 

[Curiosity101]

Also, bacteria are the most common organisms used in these experiments. You have pointed out some great uses ie. cleaning waste of all kinds, however, who is to say that the wrong sort of people will eventually create behaviour in them meant for wrong purposes. This is just as likely to be possible then any other application of them.

Yes people can abuse the technology. But not openly. There are laws governing what people can and can't do in the genetics field. And I think alot of these are governed by large multi national comitees. I'd have to double check to be sure though.

People can only abuse it in the same way that anyone can break the law... however if they get caught there are serious punishments. And the benefits of genetic research are just too big to possibly say we should stop all of it to avoid people misusing it.

 

[ddgbumblebee]

"You can specifically target a certain section of DNA that you know doesn't do anything (yes you CAN be sure it doesn't do anything)."
True, however, this is after years of research and experimenting. I don't see danger in this specific example at the present as it has been done so many times.
"I've have much more of a problem with line bred fish such as ballon shaped where they have much higher levels of swim bladder issues."
Same thing with fancier forms of goldfish. The poor things can't even swim properly because people have sacrificed their function for aesthetics.
"We probably should eliminate knives, too, then right? Because knives can be put to wrong purposes too, such as maiming or stabbing people."
Not being smart or anything, but I would be VERY interested in seeing how this would affect us. I mean, we would be incapable of chopping up things etc. but I wonder whether death rates would actually drop (with knives alone) or something like that. Then again, that would mean that prices would go up as they are illegal. Interesting, it would be a great (but unrealistic) experiment.
"I mean, people drown every single year, we probably should take water away from them, too?"
Funny you say this because a group of University students (in America...I think) formed a petition against using a certain chemical called dihydrogen monoxide (proper name for water) and were refused because it is so important. This is too big an example as I'm sure we can live without better aesthetics (which is what I am mainly getting at) but living without a necessaty like water is a different extreme.
"but I do think that automatically rejecting generically modified organisms on these blanket statements isn't right. I don't think that it is fair unless you carefully weigh the possible benefits to the possible risks."
Yes, I do agree with you here. I should have made myself clearer and you have actually made me delve a little deeper into this subject to find an "equally balanced" perspective and so I thank you for that.
"People can only abuse it in the same way that anyone can break the law... however if they get caught there are serious punishments. And the benefits of genetic research are just too big to possibly say we should stop all of it to avoid people misusing it."
Yes, this is also true, however, I think the world would be surprised at the possibilities our technology provides people with creating. But I don't have any evidence whatsoever for this statement and a lot of people probably think it is far fetched; but I would like to see what the future holds for our world... it would (and will be) very interesting.

 

[hensonc4098]

I think I have to agree with Curiousity on this one. If the DNA and genetics of an animal species are well enough known, which they are in the likes of danios, etc. then surely we know how we can safely alter them so as not to cause harm? And I agree also that the colouration of the glofish as a pet fish (obviously it would be at disadvantage in the wild) is not affecting it in any way, so I see no problem with it. I would have more problems with the likes of bubble-eye goldfish and balloom mollies where the fishs' shape has been changed so that it has to function out of the ordinary to survive.

 

[Mikaila31]

If people really have an issue with the glofish and its genetically created color, they can just look at more dyed fish instead . Europe I believe bans all GM organisms that live animals and plants for pets and food, I may be wrong here though. They don't have a problem with importing products or sterile grains produced by such GM crops. If you did away with GM organisms entirely you would have increase in food costs, drop in food production, more starvation in 3rd world countries, ect. The consequences would be extremely far reaching. Many pharmaceuticals are generated in bacteria. They are GMed to synthesis a compound we need. One example is insulin shots for diabetics. Its all produced by bacteria that we created to do so. Remember glofish were originally produced to detect pollution. The GFP gene would only be triggered in polluted waters. They were not directly created for aquarium purposes. Someone noticed them though. Was a simple thing to permanently turn the GFP gene on and market the fish as a pet.

The zebra daino AKA the Zebra fish is the model organism in the biology world for fish. If anyone is doing genetic research on fish, the zebra daino is very likely the one they are using. A professor I have had at my Uni. uses zebra fish to study heart defects. The growing eggs are exposed to chemicals that cause heart defects. Then we try to figure out how to reverse the process. Lots of fishies die. Is it ethical some ask? I could careless about the fish honestly. Considering how many fish are poisoned and killed in the hobby for nothing but human pleasure. I'm fine with a small addition if it means some way to possibly save humans some day.

Genetics can be specific, but honestly when trying to find new genes its anything but specific. Typical geneticist has a gene with a unknown function and whats to know what it does. So most common way is to break that gene and see what happens. My professor describes it using a car engine and a sledge hammer. A car engine though is simple compared to a organism and its many many interconnected pathways. This is generally how a organisms genome becomes so well known.

GM organisms do have risks. GM genes have shown up in wild type plants from cross pollination with crop plants. Usually we can avoid making the same mistake twice. It just requires more modification! Make the plant sterile after one generation. All in all though GM has had less risks then say simple things like invasive species that someone though would be good to have where they are not normally.

 

[Geoff-]

I don't like the idea of tampering with genetics. It is dangerous.

It can be dangerous, depending on the modifications. Don't forget that nature experiences natural genetic mutations that ARE sudden changes in DNA. If it's a beneficial mutation then breeding is more successful and the mutation becomes commonplace. If it's a setback then that DNA line dies out.

The only difference is that humans are making deliberate changes, not random ones. Is a deliberate change significantly worse than a random one?

Nature often has its own way of working things out. Take a horse and breed with a donkey. Messed up, right? You get a mule, which has aspects of both horses and donkeys, but they are infertile. Thus, in evolutionary terms, it is a dead end. It might happen in nature now and then (and humans have been creating mules for generations) but it goes no further as a bloodline.

 

[Dorkhedeos]

"You can specifically target a certain section of DNA that you know doesn't do anything (yes you CAN be sure it doesn't do anything)."
True, however, this is after years of research and experimenting. I don't see danger in this specific example at the present as it has been done so many times.

So you are saying that you are fine with the end result, but you dont want any of the steps needed to reach that point?

"I mean, people drown every single year, we probably should take water away from them, too?"
Funny you say this because a group of University students (in America...I think) formed a petition against using a certain chemical called dihydrogen monoxide (proper name for water) and were refused because it is so important. This is too big an example as I'm sure we can live without better aesthetics (which is what I am mainly getting at) but living without a necessaty like water is a different extreme.

That was a hoax to see how gullible and ignorant people were. From what I remember, it originated in USC and there was no petition by the students.

"People can only abuse it in the same way that anyone can break the law... however if they get caught there are serious punishments. And the benefits of genetic research are just too big to possibly say we should stop all of it to avoid people misusing it."
Yes, this is also true, however, I think the world would be surprised at the possibilities our technology provides people with creating. But I don't have any evidence whatsoever for this statement and a lot of people probably think it is far fetched; but I would like to see what the future holds for our world... it would (and will be) very interesting.

Creating what?

 

[Mikaila31]

Creating what?

I'd create a unicorn and every other mystical creature known to man.